CODS - Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Dentists in Managing the Defective Direct Composite Restorations: A Questionnaire Survey

KT Divya, Noof N Alshareef, Jehan H Alluhaybi, Zahur O Issa, Raghad M Shaheen, Khamarunissah Shaikh, Satish Gaduputi

Keywords : Attitude, Composite, Dentists, Knowledge, Practice, Survey

Citation Information : Divya K, Alshareef NN, Alluhaybi JH, Issa ZO, Shaheen RM, Shaikh K, Gaduputi S. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Dentists in Managing the Defective Direct Composite Restorations: A Questionnaire Survey. CODS J Dent 2021; 13 (2):36-39.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10063-0118

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Objective: Understanding the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of dentists in Makkah province of Saudi Arabia regarding managing of the defective composite restorations either by repairing or replacing them and which materials are used for the same in their day-to-day practice. Methodology: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey consisting of 16 questions was developed and distributed electronically among 400 dental practitioners of Makkah province. Results: Three hundred and fifty-one responses were received. Seventy-five percent of the participants have been taught the indications for replacement and repair of dental restorations during their undergraduate level. While 87% of them practice repairing and replacing the old composite restorations during their daily practice, only 48% actually follow a specific criteria to evaluate the existing composite restoration in their practice. 27.7% of the dentists felt that the partial loss of restoration was the most common indication for the repair of composite restoration followed by marginal staining of the restoration 26.6%. While the clinical diagnosis secondary caries (45.9%) was the most common indication reported for the replacement of composite restoration in our study. The responses from the dentists who participated in our study revealed that the preservation of the tooth substance (23.5%) was the most common reason behind the decision of repair of composite restoration and was cost-effective (22.6%). Majority of our participants (66.5%) felt that repair of the restoration neither protects the pulp nor increases longevity of the remaining restoration. Regarding the most common material used to repair the old composite restoration almost all the participating dentists (92%) used different types of composite systems for repair of old composite restorations. Conclusion: Partial loss of the restoration was the most common reason for the repair of old restoration whereas secondary caries was the most common reason for replacement of restoration. Most of the dentists felt that the repair of the composite restoration preserved the tooth substance and was cost-effective. Different brands and types of composites were used in the replacement and repair of dental restorations. Though the majority of the dentists in the study have been taught the indications for replacement and repair of dental restorations during their undergraduate level and they do practice repair or replacement of composite restorations, following a specific criteria to evaluate the old or existing composite restoration must be emphasized and the students must be trained during their undergraduate level for the same.

  1. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012;28(1):87–101. DOI: 10.1016/
  2. Kanzow P, Hoffmann R, Tschammler C, et al. Attitudes, practice, and experience of German dentists regarding repair restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2016;21(4):1087–1093. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1859-3
  3. Opdam N, Bronkhorst E, Roeters J, et al. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007;23(1):2–8. DOI: 10.1016/
  4. Sajad M, Shafia, Sharma N. Knowledge and attitude of dental practitioners towards composite restorations—a questionnaire-based survey. Int J Contemp Med Res 2018;5(8):9–12. DOI: 10.21276/ijcmr.2018.5.8.12
  5. Fayyaz A, Fareed MA, Ehsan S, et al. Repair or replacement of defective direct composite restorations: a survey of dentists. J Pak Dent Assoc 2015;24(1):17–21. DOI: 10.25301/jpda.273.115
  6. Mjör I, Moorhead J, Dahl J. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J 2000;50(6): 361–366. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2000.tb00569.x
  7. Yousef M, Khoja N. Repair and replacement perception of dental restorations. J King Abdulaziz Univ Med Sci 2009;16(1):75–85. DOI: 10.4197/med.16-1.7
  8. AlBaker AA, Al-Ruthia YSH, AlShehri M, et al. The characteristics and distribution of dentist workforce in Saudi Arabia: a descriptive cross-sectional study. Saudi Pharm J 2017;25(8):1208–1216. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2017.09.005
  9. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001;3(1):45–64.
  10. Goldstein G. The longevity of direct and indirect posterior restorations is uncertain and may be affected by a number of dentist-, patient-, and material-related factors. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2010;10(1):30–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.015
  11. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004;29(5):481–508.
  12. Blum IR, Lynch CD, Wilson NH. Factors influencing repair of dental restorations with resin composite. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2014;6:81–87. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S53461
  13. Gordan V, Riley J, Geraldeli S, et al. Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in the dental practice-based research network. J Am Dent Assoc 2012;143(6):593–601. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0238
  14. Al-Badri HM, Mansi ZM, Alhashimi RA. Questionnaire-based survey assessment of Iraqi dentists using repair versus replacement of defective composite restoration. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol 2020;14(2):965–970. DOI: 10.37506/ijfmt.v14i2.3022
  15. Kanzow P, Dieckmann P, Hausdörfer T, et al. Repair restorations: questionnaire survey among dentists in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. Swiss Dent J 2017;127(4):300–311.
  16. Staxrud F, Tveit AB, Rukke HV, et al. Repair of defective composite restorations. A questionnaire study among dentists in the public dental service in Norway. J Dent 2016;52:50–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.004
  17. Kallio T, Tezvergil-Mutluay A, Lassila L, et al. The effect of surface roughness on repair bond strength of light-curing composite resin to polymer composite substrate. Open Dent J 2013;7(1):126–131. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601307010126
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.